Good post Amanda.  The contradiction in the Tebow story does need to be the highlight of any criticism of the ad, not its existence.

NOW sent an email blast out stating that they were outraged and asking women to call CBS and ask them not to run the ad.  I do like your approach better, since I have a natural ick reaction to censorship.  And I wonder why NOW doesn’t simply sponsor an ad pointing out exactly what you’re saying and run it during the Superbowl?  I think it would put CBS in quite a position, how could they refuse to run it now?

Because it costs $2.5 million to buy ad space during the Super Bowl.  The pro-choice movement simply doesn’t have piles of cash laying around like the anti-choice movement, in no small part because we offer actual services, whereas all their money is dedicated to propaganda.

Oh, right, of course.  Silly of me not to have realized it would be cost prohibative for them.

I get your point about the existence of choice elevating anti-choice women within the movement, but I’m not entirely sold on it. These women are modeling submission, while other cultural actors are publicly rewarding them for it. The Palins are particularly offensive… “My life is so much harder because I carried a retard baby to term.” “I have significantly reduced my professional and personal life options because I carried an unplanned pregnancy to term before even graduating high school.” Ain’t they great?

It reminds me of the bimbo modeling on Fox News… granted, I doubt they’d even be there if feminism wasn’t creating a counter-narrative, but how positive is it? It is creating a situation when wives and daughters get to see how the men in the family respond positively to Gretchen Carlson and how negatively they respond to Katie Couric—let alone other newsmaking women like Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton.

It wouldn’t exist except for feminism, but it is designed as a counter-argument aimed at the women who get to make a choice about which tribe they’ll join. It isn’t an organic, unintended consequence.

And in any counter ads, always include information about the private doctor the Tebow’s hired. The incredibly high quality medical care that she received is the primary reason why Tim Tebow was born. The fundies conveniently leave that important fact out of their exalting of her choice.

Nah, don’t worry about it, Angl.  It’s a common misconception—-the steady drumbeat of the misleading phrase “both sides” has that effect on all of us.

human, I approach the situation from the George Lakoff point of view.  They’re not going to agree with us, and hoping they just go away is a waste of energy.  But we’ve put them in a situation where they’re arguing inside our framework, and according to Lakoff, whoever controls the frame wins the argument.  Not necessarily handily, of course.  But they’re on our turf, and instead of running for the hills, we should take advantage. 

They’re modeling submission, but only sort of.  Real submission requires self-abnegation to a much greater degree.  Grasping fame, expressing opinions, etc. are subtly undermining their arguments.  But it’s only effective if we call out the contradictions every single time we see them.

Someone on their mailing list just sent me a photo of one of their fund-raising appeals.  They’re down $6 million from what they anticipated their annual income would be.

Giving it some more thought, I think I was just knee-jerking over you (sorta) holding up a positive where I really have trouble seeing one… reflecting on it, I can really see exactly your point—it is an excellent tactic.

I’m not sure they’re really working in our frame. It seems the counter-argument is, “Every woman can be as happy as Sarah Palin,” not that every woman can be as strong as her. The Gretchen Carlson thing is a good example—they could hold her up as a smart, sophisticated woman who has chosen their lifestyle, but instead they mask all of these qualities of strength and have her play act, “now, I didn’t know what that meant, so I looked it up on google…”

It is a brilliant gotcha point, and it dumps a lot of wind out of their sales… if I came across as chiding you for being irresponsible or foolish, that certainly wasn’t what I meant. I’m just worried that they’re crawling around inside of our framework, too, where we’ve succeeded in creating real choices for young women (and men) growing up. They’d really like it if every girl chose to stop thinking so much and listen to their teen husband, and if they can get there by selling a Liz Lemon nightmare as the alternative, they’ll do it. They are trying to do it.

Wow, I just did an awesome job of contradicting myself brilliantly. Sorry for the lack of ordered thinking… I’m still forming a thesis in my head on this one. Thanks for letting me think out loud.

...coffee…

The basis of the add is definitely conducive to reactions of “isn’t it great she had the choice to follow her own priorities rather than having to let some other authority decide what’s best for her?” and “it’s really lucky she was wealthy enough to afford round-the-clock medical care, isn’t it?”

I suspect they were attempting to borrow our frames so as to cry “forced abortion.” Damn those evil pro-choice (oh wait, they didn’t force her to have the abortion so pro-choice was to her benefit there) doctors, trying to steal her baby away by giving her a placental abruption so she’d need an abor—-oh wait!  That was God, wasn’t it? The doctors only recommended abortion to give her a real, significant, helpful option of not dying—-how terrible of them!

More problematic is the chilling undertone of both disdain for and denialism of threats to the woman’s life as a reasonable reason to get an abortion. There’s the condescendingly dismissive, simplistic “they said I was going to die and it turned out they were lying” anecdote that they’ll encourage to mean “doctors who say you’ll die are probably exaggerating; you should try to have the baby anyway,” and then there’s the brave-martyr + duty-martyr + I-risk-so-you-need-to fallacy of “I risked my life to carry a baby to term! You should to!”/“It’s not oppression to make you risk your life to have a baby! THIS woman CHOSE it!”

I’d like to take heart in how completely ridiculous the whole mess is, but unfortunately, being ridiculous has never slowed them down much before.

No worries.  I think you’re right that it’s certainly complicated, and people are going to draw the conclusions they want.  But these discussions are aimed at the mushy middle, and the mushy middle sympathizes more with the pro-choice side when looking at women.  The mushy middle is easier to convince on the anti-choice side when anti-choicers imply that fetuses are disembodied beings that have no relationship to women’s lives.  When you actually have pictures of women carting around babies, that sets off a different set of signals, ones that anti-choicers would largely prefer to avoid if they can help it. 

I don’t know if I’m being clear, so I’ll just put it bluntly: Both men and women looking at Bristol Palin cuddling her baby have a much more complicated set of reactions than they do looking at a baby by itself, or a picture of a fetus with no relationship to the pregnant woman.  We’re not particularly pleased on the whole by teen pregnancy.  Even the Palins concede that showing Bristol & baby sends the message: Don’t be like me.  And one way not to be like Bristol is to have an abortion should you end up pregnant.

Showing a woman and a baby invokes pleasure, sure, but it also invokes realistic concerns about how much trouble a baby can be, and is a reminder that one shouldn’t be forced to do this against your will.  Bristol hitting the road is an especially bad move for anti-choicers, because every time she talks about how narrow and sad her life has gotten since she had a baby, she’s arguing not against sex (as they hope), but against teenage motherhood.  Most people are well aware there’s more than one way to skin a cat, and that it’s perfectly possible to be sexually active without having kids.  The idea that teenage motherhood is hard argues as well and possibly better for contraception and abortion rights over abstinence.

Exactly, Kyra.  The feminist reaction to the ad that I propose is scary, because it’s complicated.  But it’s less complicated than the argument in the ad.  And so we win on those grounds.  Just highlighting “choice” a lot can be very effective, as witnessed by the spinning out of control from the antis on my RH Reality Check piece.  The more they try to argue down this line, the more complicated and hard to follow they get.  Meanwhile, we get to say, “See?  If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.  That’s what Pam Tebow did.”

Speaking of Sarah Palin—painful as that is at times—she went after NOW for their protest and yet again used the word “choice” as well as suggesting that NOW doesn’t want women to be empowered. Maddening, in a way, and I made the same point you did, Amanda, about how choice is power.

There’s also been a little blowback—not much, but some—from the sports world on the ad itself, from sportswriters who don’t want politics mucking up their corporate orgy of commercials. I just wish CBS would be honest about it. And I really hope you’re right, that this was a gamble gone bad for Focus on the Family, and that it hurts them in the long run. That would be sweet.

That is so true about Bristol Palin.  That’s what I think everytime I see her doing one of these “I chose life” things.  I can’t believe they don’t see it, but that’s okay.  I bet she is scaring quite a few teens straight…straight onto the pill.

I bet she is scaring quite a few teens straight…straight onto the pill.

I worry that she’s doing the opposite, but only because at a quick glance, Bristol doesn’t seem to be having a hard time with motherhood. And why should she? She’s white, privileged, from a family that now has a fair amount of money, and she’s mostly seen in public in ways which are flattering to her. If only all teen pregnancies could be this way. And while teens aren’t stupid, they’re also not the best at ferreting out the difference between media image and real life—lots of adults are bad at this as well, to be fair—so I don’t see them taking away a negative image from Bristol Palin. I worry about the opposite.

I love bluntness.

And I agree that Bristol was a major blunder for anti-choicers, but it is mostly because they’ve gotten to the point of being so wrapped up in their own subculture (and have grown increasingly distrustful of their more rational allies), that their judgment is flawed. Getting knocked up in high school terrifies most women and most of their parents… to see the Republicans celebrating a teen pregnancy was a huge shock. They can hide behind their “abstinence works” bullshit, but actually holding up the truth without any slut-shaming or “cautionary tale” context completely alienates that ill-informed-but-practical mushy middle. It was a miscalculation on their part…

The other thing, though, that they are trying to do by holding up their own choosers is to try to create the popular conception that both choices are equal, that having the baby isn’t so bad. They try to leave out the part about health costs, like this Tebow thing, or diminished life options, like Bristol, but they are actively trying to sell the idea that this isn’t so bad… it is a backdoor tactic to undermine the sense of urgency about choice through the mushy middle. “Empowered women are going to continue to have options no matter what, and it isn’t so bad for the people who don’t, so if those crazy people are going to be so fucking crazy, just give them what they want and maybe they’ll go away.”

I think they’ve been very successful with this, and a big part of the Bristol fuck-up was pulling her off the crazy stage and into this larger narrative. You can keep parents on board if you convince them that good kids—like their own kids—don’t need contraception and choice, because only sluts get pregnant in school.

I’m not advocating this as a position any one else take, but I take a half-facetious pro-abortion (as opposed to pro-choice) stance when I have a lot of these arguments. My mom had an abortion before she was with my dad, and if she’d had a kid he wouldn’t have gotten involved with her. So, me and my sister were planned and pretty successfully raised. The alternative would have been an unplanned kid with an irresponsible fuck dad. The choices aren’t’ value-neutral. Flush, flush, flush! Yes… it doesn’t earn me a lot of friends.

While I agree on the framing issue and the irony of Pam Tebow’s “choice,” I still think the media bias issue should be addressed. CBS is airing a conservative issue advocacy spot while they’ve denied at least two liberal issue advocacy spots in previous Super Bowls. One was a moveon ad and one, if memory serves, was an ad by the Episcopal church in favor of gay marriage, or at least gay tolerance.

Outlander,
It was the UCC, and it was about being open to gay members, and as I recall, had a gay couple or two prominently featured in it, so the subtext was certainly about same-sex marriage.

And I’m with you on the media bias issue—I’m a little surprised CBS hasn’t defended itself by saying “times are tough and we had problems selling the spots at the price point we wanted” or something similar.

Outlander:  the other advocacy ad CBS turned down was from the national United Churches of Christ.  It was about the open and welcoming stance that the UCCs take to everyone wanting to find an inclusive church.

Amanda wrote:

we could continue to point out that they’re buying into the pro-choice framework, and that if women like Pam Tebow don’t have a choice, they don’t get to be heroes.  Just victims.

Except, of course, most—not all—of the pro-life proposals have exceptions in the case of a serious health risk to the pregnant woman, and Pam Tebow’s choice not to have an abortion which was recommended for health reasons would still not be taken away were wholly elective abortion outlawed.  The narrative you have suggested doesn’t quite line up with the ad.

I haven’t seen this mentioned anywhere yet, but it could be a consideration, due to Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, that the networks are giving more weight to freedom of speech concerns, even though, as private companies, the First Amendment does not apply to their acceptance or rejections of advertisements.

and Pam Tebow’s choice not to have an abortion which was recommended for health reasons

Notice something about what you just said there? Again, you’re admitting that she had the CHOICE and she exercised that CHOICE as she saw fit.

Now, let me point out that when you have a situation where the government is able to make unilateral decisions about what happens in your body, you lose that choice. If abortion were outlawed, even if it had exceptions for life and health, the choice element has been so badly damaged (especially when you have your Godly anti-choice folks gunning down the doctors who can actually help a woman in that life or health situation), that the government now has the precedent to exercise full control over choice decisions. Maybe Pam Tebow didn’t want the abortion, but if you have a law that says “a woman cannot have an abortion unless her life and health are at risk,” it’s really not that far of a stretch to then tack on “at which point she must have an abortion.” If you’ve taken that amount of control out of a woman’s hands, it’s really not hard for a court order to step in and insist that (for the sake of her children that are already alive, for the sake of her testimony in an upcoming trial, for the sake of whatever) to force her to have the abortion.

The worst thing about this ad is that, if every woman whose placenta detaches decides “Whee I’m choosing life!”, a whole bunch of them will die.  And of the ones who live, a whole bunch of the babies will die. So this commercial is pretty pro-death, all things considered. Of course, the Catholic Church teaches that lifesaving abortions are not permitted unless you have a concurrent hysterectomy, since women’s highest purpose is to die screaming and bleeding in a futile effort to bring a micropreemie to term.

Let me add that I take glee in the fact that Tim Tebow has been stinking up the joint in Senior Bowl practice.  I hope the kind folks of Cleveland or Buffalo or possibly Detroit are very welcoming to their new 3rd stringer!

Here’s Focus on Family’s fund-raising appeal that claims they are $6 million behind their anticipated income.

Nonsense, Dana.  The ruling gave corporations more, not less power. I’ll bet that they realized that this charade would be an annual event and rolled over.

Also, Dana, you’re making the fatal mistake of making this more complicated.  Which again, puts you in the “you’re losing” arena.  Interesting, her health was not actually in danger, it turns out.  It was more the concern that she’d have major birth defects, and since abortion in all cases is illegal in the Philippines, this “exception” nonsense you’re trotting out is beside the point.

And anyway, the notion that antis include exceptions is silly.  Maybe those whose misogyny isn’t that deep, but the Focus on Family hardcore wingnuts want women to die from forced pregnancy.  That’s why most of their protest attention/terrorism efforts are aimed at doctors like George Tiller, who specialized in medically indicated abortions.  The very first people they’re trying to wipe out are those who save lives.

And I’m with you on the media bias issue—I’m a little surprised CBS hasn’t defended itself by saying “times are tough and we had problems selling the spots at the price point we wanted” or something similar.

You wouldn’t do that, because it could cause a major drop in CBS stock. Admitting out loud that you can’t even sell ads for the Super Bowl would send stockholders a-running.

@ humanadverb - “as strong as her???  Hahahahaha.  One kid in the military - quite possibly as a result of juvenile crime.  One daughter with only a high school education knocked up and in a nasty public custody battle.  Second daughter now under national scrutiny whose every teen faux pas will take place under that microscope.

She has two living active parents, a supooprtive sister and a SAHD hubby - and her family is still fucked up.

She’s proves everytime she hits the air that she’s a babbling (“mandation”) idiot.  I think the pressure is getting to her.  Even Hannity couldn’t cover for her. I’m waiting for her to do a public TV breakdown.  Personally, I think she’s abusing diet pills and is anorexic or has some sort of brain tumor.

The idea that teenage motherhood is hard argues as well and possibly better for contraception and abortion rights over abstinence.
Comment #13: Amanda Marcotte on 01/29 at 10:07 AM

And the latest rumor says she gets to do it in a $60K SUV and room in mommy’s mansion.  Yeah, cry me a river when you need to work a real 40 hour week and use public transportation, Twit.

Seriously, I am more furious at a Bristol who came thisclose to being human as she tried to escape the clutches of Caribou Barbie.  But she sold out BIGTIME.

Except, of course, most—not all—of the pro-life proposals have exceptions in the case of a serious health risk to the pregnant woman, and Pam Tebow’s choice not to have an abortion which was recommended for health reasons would still not be taken away were wholly elective abortion outlawed.

The second part of your statement is undermined by the first part.  Some of them ARE trying to outlaw ALL abortions regardless of threat to health or life, and besides which the movement as a whole is not known for its consideration of these things except on paper as an attempt to paint themselves as reasonable.  Drs. Tiller and Carhart, who perform mostly health-or-life-saving abortions, were/are the most viciously attacked abortion providers because the anti-abortion community reframes those abortions as “late-term” abortions, disappearing the health and life consideration to go “it’s almost ready to be born, you’re even more of a monster than if you’d had one for no reason two months ago!”

And letting them outlaw elective abortions brings the ones who want no abortions at all closer to “reasonable” in the public’s eye.  They will point to it as precedent and bring out the “if the fetus of a healthy woman deserves life, the fetus of a woman suffering cardiac arrest, stroke, eclampsia, etc, does too—-IT didn’t do anything wrong!” argument just the way they currently bring out the “it’s not the baby’s fault you were raped” one at the same time as they champion a “reasonable exception” for it in legislatures to make their arguments sound more reasonable.

They value the unborn (and only the unborn) above my autonomy, my comfort, my freedom, and my prospects in life; I don’t trust them in the slightest not to value them over my health or my life.

It was the United Church of Christ ad that was rejected, and not for the Superbowl, we don’t have that kind of money.  It was just for regular programming. Although the ad said nothing about same sex marriage, they told us it was clearly a political ad.  But like Amanda pointed out, we got a huge amount of publicity that we would not otherwise have gotten.  CNN picked up the story, and Jack Cafferty had a rant about it.  We got a huge number of hits on our UCC website.  A major part of the story is CBS being so blatant in having a double standard.

Dana makes the (common, sadly) mistake of taking the anti-choicers at face value. When anyone (anyone with two brain cells to rub together) who spends more than 5 minutes with a clinic protester can tell that they are, to a person, lying sacks of malicious shit.

Sorry. They just are. I’ve met over 100 in the past couple of years. And every single one, had I met him/her in a grocery store, or a bar, or in line at the movies—with no knowledge of their political stance—would make a decent person shudder. Every. Single. One.

You ordinary folk walking past, feeling bad for us volunteers who take their abuse—you should hear what they say about YOU!

Pam Tebow’s choice not to have an abortion which was recommended for health reasons would still not be taken away were wholly elective abortion outlawed.

And who gets to decide that an abortion is for health reasons in the first place, Dana?

Doctors, the courts, your local parish priest?

Why shouldn’t a woman have the right to do with her own body as she pleases?

All it will mean that if a woman can find the right doctors, they can say that an abortion is necessary for anything from halitosis to hangnails, and for those not so well-connected,  they’re just sluts who shouldn’t have been having sex when they knew what the possible consequences should be, correct?

“Except, of course, most—not all—of the pro-life proposals have exceptions in the case of a serious health risk to the pregnant woman, and Pam Tebow’s choice not to have an abortion which was recommended for health reasons would still not be taken away were wholly elective abortion outlawed.”

Dana, sorry, but I don’t believe that for a minute.  Most anti-choice people would close that loophole in a heartbeat, given the chance, and ban contraception along with it.  The current favorite technique is the “fetal personhood” law.  Remember North Dakota, Colorado?...

If some pro-choice group could afford a commercial in the Super Bowl, it would only need to say:

Choice: Aren’t you glad Tebow’s mother had it?

BREAKING NEWS:

After 15 minutes, the jury in the Scott Roeder trial has reached their verdict.

The safe asumption is that he has been found guilty of First Degree Murder, and will face a mandatory life sentence with parole elegibility in 25 years (Roeder was not death penalty elegible).

The verdict is about to be read.

ROEDER: GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.

MANDATORY LIFE IMPRISONMENT.

“Let me add that I take glee in the fact that Tim Tebow has been stinking up the joint in Senior Bowl practice.  I hope the kind folks of Cleveland or Buffalo or possibly Detroit are very welcoming to their new 3rd stringer!”

Um, the Lions aren’t drafting Tebow, unless they decide he can play defensive end. They picked Matt Stafford from Georgia last year. His publicly reported off-the-field interests appear to include getting drunk and posing in photos with women in swimsuits.

Yeah Dana it’s not like the biggest players in the anti-choice movement are pushing for no exceptions. The Catholic Church for example wouldn’t try to push a 9 year-old who was raped by her (uncle?) and was in danger for her life because she would have had twins to go forward with the pregnancy anyway.
Oh wait, they would.

Most of the anti-choice groups pushing things do not want exceptions (and are also anti-contraception). Most people support the right to abortion with exceptions, which is why the groups hide how radical they are.

They just hit Scott Roeder with a guilty for everything.  Thank goodness.

Except, of course, most—not all—of the pro-life proposals have exceptions in the case of a serious health risk to the pregnant woman, and Pam Tebow’s choice not to have an abortion which was recommended for health reasons would still not be taken away were wholly elective abortion outlawed.  The narrative you have suggested doesn’t quite line up with the ad.

What Kyra said. Everything. See also Gonzales v. Carhart, in which anti-choice judges decided that it was okay to outlaw the procedure that threatens the woman’s health the least, even though such procedures are only performed in cases of health exceptions.

While I agree on the framing issue and the irony of Pam Tebow’s “choice,” I still think the media bias issue should be addressed. CBS is airing a conservative issue advocacy spot while they’ve denied at least two liberal issue advocacy spots in previous Super Bowls. One was a moveon ad and one, if memory serves, was an ad by the Episcopal church in favor of gay marriage, or at least gay tolerance. 

Well, the word around sports news is that CBS HAS been having trouble selling all their Super Bowl spots, so it’s more a matter of greed than hypocrisy (and, as others have pointed out, CBS can’t say it publically….)

That’s my take as well.  Focus on the Family chose the exact right year to try to run an ad like this, given the current state of the economy.

I imagine if the Episcopol Church was willing to pony up the $2.5 Million THIS YEAR to run their ad, they probably wouldn’t face as much obstruction from the network execs than they did back in 2005 or 2006 (can’t remember which year it was), when the economy was still bustling along smoothly (at least superficially, anyway).

Not saying there is no hypocrisy involved at all, but I do think the economic climate this year versus the economic climate a few years ago factors isto all of this.  They say beggars can’t be choosers, and when more companies are tightening their belts on their advertising budgets, it gives the Super Bowl network less room to be super selective in whose ads they will run.

NY Times says they’ve convicted Roder of murder!  I am so relieved!

Keep in mind, ultimately the Focus on the Fascism ad is to promote Daddy Dobson’s new radio show—the one he’s doing with his son, who respects the institution of marriage so much that he got divorced and re-married. Taken in that way, the $2.5m may be worth it.

NY Times says they’ve convicted Roder of murder!  I am so relieved!

It took the jury 37 minutes to come back with a verdict of first-degree murder. There is hope.

Except, of course, most—not all—of the pro-life proposals have exceptions in the case of a serious health risk to the pregnant woman,

Unfortunately, these forced-gestation policies are still about denying women any agency.

Should you be carrying a dead fetus, and choose to terminate, since, well, the baby is DEAD and will ROT inside of you, you can be shit out of luck paying for it if you are a federal employee or a soldier.  You may be shit out of luck if Stupak-type amendments change private healthcare insurance.  And you might be shit out of luck in general since doctors don’t learn proper procedures anymore.

The problem with “serious health risk” is that a dead or dying fetus or a placental abruption or a fetus without properly developed organs, such as the case with low/no amniotic fluid, is just a “risk “to the mother’s life until things actually go septic or hemorrhaging begins.  Once a woman is septic or hemorrhaging, THEN her health is threatened enough for doctors and health insurance companies to be willing to go forward with a procedure to save her life. 

Before a woman is actually septic, it’s just a risk, and forced-gestation laws restrict the woman from assessing that risk and making a choice.  It happens TODAY, with our current laws, with our current doctors, with our current health care system.

Terminating a failed pregnancy before it goes septic means that the woman’s health is safe and she can have other children.  Forced-gestationists like to pretend that no pregnancy ever threatens the life of a woman (Media Matters has Bill O’Reilly saying just that).  It plays so sweetly into their narrative of “if you just choose to have the baby, everything will be just fine”.  Pam Tebow is just a reiteration—see, if you just “CHOOSE LIFE” everything will be fine.

Firstly, she was in the Philipines, so I actually doubt the doctor recommended abortion in the first place, since it’s not legal there.  Secondly, Pam Tebow had 4 other children.  Okay, none of them were Football Jesus, but didn’t they deserve to have a mom?  B/c she risked her life to have little Timmy, she also risked leaving them motherless, and while the forced-gestationists think dying to have a baby is the bestestest mothering any mother can do, most of us think actually living and being a mother to your kids is a better choice.

Pam Tebow is fighting to force her choice on everyone, and, as above, that will result in many many more deaths of women and the babies they carry.  It’s not going to result in a plethora of Football Jesuseseses.

ROEDER: GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.

Call me pessimistic, but I wonder how long it will take for wingnuts to start crying persecution over this one.

Hell YES on that verdict! I’m very happy with that judge right now—from the bits I’ve heard it sounds like the trial was handled pretty well, and clearly it had a good outcome! That makes my day! (And hey, in the future maybe it saves my life, who knows?)

Dana, sorry, but after decades of extremism no-one believes the anti-choice advocates acting in good faith. To add to the examples provided above, when a group regards a classic “big store” confidence game as a legitimate tactic (as the anti-choice side does with their phony “pregnancy crisis centres”) the time for pretending they’re reasonable is over.

@40: Oh, I know, I just think Tebow in Detroit would be a hilarious black hole of fail big enough to engulf us all.  Not that Cleveland/Buffalo won’t be!

catgirl, according to the NY times article I read about this verdict, they are already doing it.  They are claiming Roeder (I keep wanting to write rodent) did not get a “fair trial”.  And they say that this might incite further violence.

Because I guess if we had just let him go (their idea of a “fair trial”) no one would have ever committed an act of violence against an abortion provider again.

With regard to Roeder, the maximum sentence he can be given is life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after 25 years.

However, the prosecutor is apparantly considering getting a “hard 50” instead, which would most likely be a functional life sentence.  A “hard 50” doesn’t offer parole at any time, but it guarantees Roeder’s absolute release after serving 50 years.

Scott Roeder is 51 or 52 years old (he was 51 at the time of his arrest 8 months ago) - life w/ parole possibility would mean he could theoretically be released when he’s 76 or 77 years old.  A “hard 50” sentence means he would definitely be released at age 101 or 102 - if he is still alive - but not a day sooner.

I think they should go for the “hard 50” - I really doubt that he’ll live to see his 100th birthday, and that would almost definitely guarantee that he never gets out of prison.

They’ll say we tried to censor it, even if we have nothing to do with it, though.  Which I haven’t seen any calls to CBS not to air it.

They need to give him a hard 50, because antis have a high probability of recommitting violence.  The woman that was feeding Roeder info on Dr. Tiller’s whereabouts, for instance, had done time for a bombing plot.

And they say that this might incite further violence.

This sounds like a thinly-veiled threat the mafia might make in some B-list movie.  Or it’s like when an abusive parent tells a kid that the child made them resort to violence.

I’m beginning to think our new troll is a satire, because even with as dumb as many antis are, they aren’t that fucking dumb.

This is Lying For Jesus(TM) at it’s best.  I’m sure the trolls are thrilled that Focus on the Fambly will get money from the lies they tell, in a commercial that they blow millions on.  That’s Christian Love, right there.  Oh, and the pregnant women who will die because of this ad are just icing on the cake.

because even with as dumb as many antis are, they aren’t that fucking dumb.

Yeah, they really are.

Boy, it isn’t very long before they cross into the creepy stalker seeming behavior and get banned for exhibiting an unhealthy obsession with a woman for whom they wish to deprive of basic human rights.

Gosh if only there were some sort of “internet” where people might hear the message as well.

OH, whoops. Now that comment makes no sense. M Sry.

Well, I missed everything because I was doing a bid, but I understand from what is left, that there was something to miss, and I can kinda piece a bit of it together, so your comment doesn’t NOT make sense.

Point to note: as you criticize CBS for the decision to air the ad, while liberal ads were rejected last year, the Super Bowl wasn’t on CBS last year; it was on NBC, while Fox carried the previous SB.  CBS las carried the Super Bowl in 2007.

Almost makes one want to start a campaign to get the ad aired more than once - make the scum buy multiple spots or face riducule as “caving to the lefties” - and try to simply burn through all their money in one big go

Dana,

You are a doofus.

Use the google.  Please.  CBS rejected the ads the last time they ran the Superbowl.  It wasn’t last year.  NBC and FOX don’t have the same “no advocacy” policy that CBS claimed they had when they refused to run liberal commercials.

This year, they say they’ve revised their policy and would accept the UCC ad if they wanted to purchase time again.  The policy decision announcement came after the firestorm following the decision to air the Tebow Lies.

Use the google.  Please.  CBS rejected the ads the last time they ran the Superbowl.  It wasn’t last year.  NBC and FOX don’t have the same “no advocacy” policy that CBS claimed they had when they refused to run liberal commercials.

Correct.  I believe CBS’ prior refusal occurred in 2007 - the last year they had SB broadcast rights.

I don’t know how long the current Super Bowl broadcast contract runs through, but it does appear the NFL is using a three year rotation at least for the foreseeable future - Fox gets it again next year in Dallas, then NBC in 2012 in Indianapolis, then CBS again in 2013 in New Orleans.

Dana, you’re really mixing up the facts now.  CBS rejected political ads for programs other than the Super Bowl—-it was an across the board policy.

Plus, doing the typical wingnut thing.  Lost one argument, moving on to the next, as if it never happened.  That sort of shamelessness is something to behold.

Plus, doing the typical wingnut thing.  Lost one argument, moving on to the next, as if it never happened.  That sort of shamelessness is something to behold.

In a way you have to understand, though—on a day when the highest-profile representative of Dana’s movement is a religious psychopath who’s being sent to the slammer for life, he can be forgiven for being off his game.

Dana, the entire narrative of the Tebow story and the Focus on the Family ad is that there is NO SUCH THING as a medically necessary abortion.  According to the narrative, those wicked doctors told Mrs. Tebow the pregnancy would kill her, she ignored them, and it turned out she just needed a little bed rest to deliver a perfect baby with no complications.  Lesson: pregnancy and childbirth are totally safe, and anyone who claims otherwise is lying because they hate babies and football!

As Amanda and others have pointed out, the reality of the Tebow story is significantly different from the narrative FotF is selling, so they’re consciously choosing this narrative and this message.  They want to convince people that no woman’s health is ever threatened by pregnancy, and that it’s selfish or silly to seek an abortion just because your doctor thinks the pregnancy MIGHT KILL YOU.

Let me point out that Roeder certainly doesn’t support medically-necessary abortions.  In fact, he seems to think they’re even worse than elective abortions.

Oh, I know, I just think Tebow in Detroit would be a hilarious black hole of fail big enough to engulf us all.

As much as I’d like to see the Lions finally claw their way out the NFL’s basement, there’d be something poetic about having ‘future NFL superstar’ Tim Tebow wind up in Detroit watching one season after another circle the drain as his god-bothering, biblical facepaint and magical Jesus Powers completely fail to make a difference to the team.  I’d be willing to endure that for the good of the nation.

As much as I’d like to see the Lions finally claw their way out the NFL’s basement

You did this year.  My St. Louis Rams have officially replaced your team as the absolute worst team in football in 2009.

But we do get the #1 draft pick at least.

CBS also rejected an advertisement from a dating service for gay men.  http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/29/news/companies/mancrunch_ad_super_bowl/index.htm?cnn=yes&hpt=T2

So, yeah, they’re really neutral in all this.

CBS also rejected an advertisement from a dating service for gay men.  http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/29/news/companies/mancrunch_ad_super_bowl/index.htm?cnn=yes&hpt=T2

So, yeah, they’re really neutral in all this.

I just caught that on Dylan Ratigan’s show on MSNBC two minutes ago!

Ratigan was ripping CBS hard for the hypocrisy.  I thought the commerical was funny as hell.  I was mistaken above - it seems pretty clear that CBS is blatantly pandering to wingnut fundies at this point.

I think CBS was so terrified after the Dan Rather vs right wing bloggers debacle that the cowardly pissants vowed to spend the rest of their lives kissing right wing ass in the hopes that they will never be targeted again.

Because we all know that right wing bullies respond to that the way all bullies do; the more you placate and pacify and kiss their asses, the nicer they are to you.

Sure.

Anyway, I agree that FotF probably submitted the ad hoping it’d be rejected so they could milk it for free publicity.  I also think the ad will backfire.  Rather than convincing people that pregnancy complications are a hoax invented by liberals, it’ll serve as a reminder that such complications do exist.  Most women, hearing the Tebow story, are likely to imagine being in a terrible situation where they have to choose between ending a pregnancy and possibly dying, and most of us will be glad that Tebow’s mother had a choice.  As Amanda notes, whenever you include actual, living women and children in the debate, the frame shifts to favor the pro-choice side.

patriarchy’s itchy auto-immune disorder!

Well I think that most of us would also be glad if all women had her freaking health care options!  I know I would be.

Except, of course, most—not all—of the pro-life proposals have exceptions in the case of a serious health risk to the pregnant woman, and Pam Tebow’s choice not to have an abortion which was recommended for health reasons would still not be taken away were wholly elective abortion outlawed.  The narrative you have suggested doesn’t quite line up with the ad.
Comment #22: Dana on 01/29 at 10:58 AM

Oh bs Dana and you know it.  What’s one of the first things that anti-choicers go after - late term abortions.  And it would seem from what I’ve heard, that the doctor who didn’t recommend, but merely made Tebow aware of the risks associated with the drugs she was taking - (anyone know what drugs those would be and their side effects?) - would have been beyond first trimester at least.  And those risks would have been to the fetus, not the mother anyway.  Her risk would be in not taking or stop takign the drugs.

It could definitely backfire. Plenty of non professional anti-choicers believe there is currently a health exception -  there isn’t, in any law that anti-choicers have pushed. Because the doctor just has to sign a permission slip and everyone is invited to your very own abortion party!

“So, good for her, she had a choice, and she made the decision that she wanted to. Wouldn’t you like to do the same? Let’s pass the Give Every Woman the Pam Tebow Option Act to amend Hyde, Stupak, etc.”

I’ve heard that Jacksonville will take him because they are desperate for a boost in ticket sales. They can’t get that much worse, anyway.

Why not just play up this ad as the pro-choice ad it could be interpreted as. Ms Tebow faced a difficult situation, was well informed of her options, took her chances, had a close call but got lucky with her little football star. Other women with fewer resources might make other choices. Some women with means equal or greater than Ms Tebow’s might opt for abortion, and try for another kid later or elect to have no further children. All Hail the Diversity of Women’s Choices.

The Tebow ad could have could have been spun as pro-choice. The Tebow ad makes the blunder of arguing within our frame, we could work with that. Pro-choice groups have blown that opportunity by trying to have the ad pulled.

OMG FOTF has become GoDaddy.

Aside from the obvious irritation at people like Tebow who feel they have to shove their religiosity into the public domain 24/7, I have serious issues over the comments made by Tebow’s mother.  She would lead us to believe that her doctor was an uncaring quack that nearly ended the life of her unborn son when he advised her to terminate the pregnancy for medical reasons. The cavalier attitude ascribed to her physician is a creation of her biased mind and not the behavior of a medical professional counseling a patient facing a serious ethical choice.

The more troublesome issue presented in this carefully scripted passion play is the not so veiled suggestion that faith trumps science. When informed of the seriousness of her condition, she decided, on the strength of faith alone, to continue her pregnancy. With the gift of 20/20 hindsight, Mrs. Tebow presents her singular experience as a model for all women facing a similar diagnosis. Her commentary callously suggests that modern science and medicine are no more capable of ameliorating human suffering than are the incantations of a tribal witchdoctor chanted over the spilled entrails of a butchered goat. 

Has a professional diagnosis of Trisomy 21, Tay-Sachs, Anencephaly, or any of the other tragic birth abnormalities intruded on your plans for motherhood? Mrs. Tebow would have women believe that faith alone will restructure that mortally scrambled life developing with them. What meaningless sympathies would Mrs.Tebow extend to those mothers who chose faith over science only to give birth to a child condemned to a short and painful existence?  With tragic irony, the faith that only added to human suffering is now used to justify that suffering as God’s will.  The cruelty behind that blind faith knows no limits.

As usual, the mainstream pro-choice movements have missed a huge opportunity and are making enemies out of their natural supporters.  We do not and cannot support censorship.  And when the antis are giving us such a wide opening, we don’t even need to consider it.

I’ve been a clinic escort and supporter of abortion rights for many years, and I’ve come to believe that NOW and NARAL have no idea at all about how to talk to anyone except white, college-educated, affluent women and men-the very people who will always have access to abortion.  They cannot seem to understand that in the minds of most Americans, life trumps choice every time, e though we know that it’s a false argument.  We’ve long since lost the rhetorical battle, and these groups are the only ones who don’t know it.

<blockquote>All it will mean that if a woman can find the right doctors, they can say that an abortion is necessary for anything from halitosis to hangnails, and for those not so well-connected, they’re just sluts who shouldn’t have been having sex when they knew what the possible consequences should be, correct? </blokcquote>

Except nuh-uh, because doctors who certify health risks will be subject to witch-hunts by bugfsck anti-choice prosecutors looking for higher office, outed to protesters so their offices can be trashed, and lose their privileges at catholic-owned hospitals. Anecdata from a friend who was in a difficult pregnancy when the tests came back showing that the fetus was horrifically deformed, might survive to term, would definitely not survive past the day of birth. Missing organs, nonfunctioning brain parts, stuff you don’t ever want to hear. At least that’s what the doc told her in person. When asked to write the letter that would let her get a termination at her local hospital, he wrote only that there were defects that could have an adverse impact on quality of life. Because he didn’t want embarassing questions.

paul, by the right doctors, I’m thinking of those whose ‘diagnosis’ would be influenced by a monetary consideration from their patients, which wouldn’t have been the case with your friend, who probably should’ve had a voice recorder handy to document what the doctor told her, but then hind-sight is always 20-20 :-0

“Pam Tebow’s choice not to have an abortion which was recommended for health reasons would still not be taken away were wholly elective abortion outlawed.”

Hi, Dana.  Others have pointed out how this is completely incorrect—not only is the Right against any abortion at all but many/most of these organized movements are also against BIRTH CONTROL, which really gives the game away (i.e. it’s about controlling women, not about saving babies.) 

Just in case you think they are quoting extremists, however, please remember McCain in the presidential debate last year, mocking “women’s health” (in air quotes) as an EXTREME LEFT WING POSITION.

That terrified me, seriously.  My health—and that of all women—is some kind of a joke to these people.

(Crossposted—first posted in wrong thread.)

I didn’t see the NOW letter, though.  Ohwell.